Gravity - did you notice the "overhead flies" sequence? Wow - stunning sound engineering and a worthy test of our "ultra" systems! - Page 7 - AVS Forum
First ... 5  6  7 8  9  ... Last
Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) > Gravity - did you notice the "overhead flies" sequence? Wow - stunning sound engineering and a worthy test of our "ultra" systems!
cannga's Avatar cannga 04:00 AM 06-05-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Can,

You already know that lower frequencies radiate omnidirectionally like a lantern and higher frequencies radiate more directionally like a flashlight. As such, when you hear lower frequencies you're hearing more room reflections than direct sound from the speaker (or subwoofer). However, above a certain frequency range, it transitions over to you hearing more of the speaker than the room. So, technically, Olive is correct: equalizing above that transition range means you're really doing speaker correction, since the speaker is mostly what you're hearing. But, not being very technically minded, I still refer to all of it as room correction (most people understand what that means without me needing to split hairs like Olive did).

Room correction cannot fix a reflection, unless your room correction device can spit wads of fiberglass at nearby walls. Equalization only works on the signal, not the acoustics of the room. However, if the reflections are causing problems in the frequency response, then room correction can compensate the signal so that peaks are pulled down and shallow dips are boosted to give you smoother sound. The reflections aren't gone, but one of the problems they cause has been reduced. In the lower frequencies, smoothening the frequency response can also improve the impulse response (i.e., pulling down a peak can reduce decay time). Again, the reflection isn't gone, but another problem (ringing) has been reduced.

The problem with equalizing higher frequencies is that the wavelengths get smaller. 200Hz has a wavelength of 6.75 feet while 2kHz has a wavelength of 7 inches (20kHz has a wavelength of 5/8 inch). So, a 200Hz peak could be as wide as an entire love seat and pulling it down would benefit both listeners. By comparison, a 2kHz peak measured at the mic location might not be peaking a few inches away. Not worth fixing individual problems at frequencies with such small wavelengths, since you don't know which of your ears (if any) will be at the mic location. Better instead for the room correction to do broad shaping of the sound at higher frequencies, so that all your speakers sound timbre matched (rather than some sounding brighter or warmer than others). So room correction is still useful above the transition range (what you call the Schroeder frequency), just not for correcting the grass or hair (tightly-packed teeny-weeny peaks and dips) you see in the frequency response.

Sanjay, thanks for the very helpful answer and for taking care of my headache in trying to reason through this topic :-); your answer is indeed the explanation I've been looking for. Did I understand this correctly:

1. While smoothing freq response of direct sound wave is the goal, smoothing the REFLECTED sound wave only corrects one of its problems, the one in frequency domain, not time domain. (kbarnes701's epic thread - thanks - has a picture of the mistimed correction - another problem that is probably in this category as well?)
2. Primary issue: at higher frequency and small wavelength, smoothing frequency response at one ear may un-smooth sound at the other ear.

I have two questions please:
1. As you have mentioned, the best use of "correction" in high frequency is not necessarily to smooth the response graph, but more to induce the downward tilt frequency response (what you call "broad shaping" of sound?). Does this mean then the best way to achieve this is to turn off "room correction" above say 400 hz, then use equalizer to shape the sound?
2. Do you happen to know if the room that was used in the original paper by Floyd Toole (that leads to the smooth downward tilt response being more preferable) treated for reflection? Just became curious now after reading your explanation above!

sdurani's Avatar sdurani 10:36 AM 06-05-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

While smoothing freq response of direct sound wave is the goal, smoothing the REFLECTED sound wave only corrects one of its problems, the one in frequency domain, not time domain. (kbarnes701's epic thread - thanks - has a picture of the mistimed correction - another problem that is probably in this category as well?)
Most speakers have a flat enough on-axis response that the direct sound doesn't need correction/smoothing. When the direct sound combines with reflections, in some seats they re-inforce each other (peak) while in other seats they cancel each other (dip). It depends on when the reflections meet the direct sound (timing).

That's when equalization can help, by pulling down peaks and boosting shallow dips. In the low frequencies, correcting a problem in the frequency domain can often correct a problem in the time domain (i.e., flattening a peak in the frequency response measurement can show a reduction in that frequency's decay time in the waterfall measurement). It's actually the same problem (extra bass energy) seen from two perspectives: extra can be seen as too much (peak in the frequency response) or lasting too long (long decay time in the waterfall).

Since the same frequency can show up as a peak or dip, depending on which seat you're in, pulling down a peak in one seat can make a dip worse in another seat. There is less chance of that in the low frequencies, where wavelengths are larger, but it routinely happens in higher frequencies. Hence the pic in kbarnes701's thread that shows that equalization can make things worse when wavelengths are small and listeners are not sitting at the seat that is being corrected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

2. Primary issue: at higher frequency and small wavelength, smoothing frequency response at one ear may un-smooth sound at the other ear.
Depending on wavelength, it can vary an inch from your ear. Pointless to correct individual peaks & dips at such high frequencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

As you have mentioned, the best use of "correction" in high frequency is not necessarily to smooth the response graph, but more to induce the downward tilt frequency response (what you call "broad shaping" of sound?). Does this mean then the best way to achieve this is to turn off "room correction" above say 400 hz, then use equalizer to shape the sound?
Room correction is the term used to describe automated equalization. So if you are going to use room correction system, then find one that transitions to broad shaping of the sound in higher frequencies. If it doesn't do that, then you can cut it off around the transition range (Schroeder frequency) IF that results in better sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

Do you happen to know if the room that was used in the original paper by Floyd Toole (that leads to the smooth downward tilt response being more preferable) treated for reflection? Just became curious now after reading your explanation above!
It was the Sean Olive paper and all the listening was done in the Harman reference room in Chatsworth.


cannga's Avatar cannga 06:19 PM 06-06-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Room correction is the term used to describe automated equalization. So if you are going to use room correction system, then find one that transitions to broad shaping of the sound in higher frequencies. If it doesn't do that, then you can cut it off around the transition range (Schroeder frequency) IF that results in better sound.

Do you happen to know if Dirac is capable of doing the above - out of the box, or through users' custom settings? Thanks.

BTW, in your answers, you've appeared to emphasize the concept that the science is worthy "only if it results in better sound," to the individual listener. This point is very well taken, and to me is fundamental to this hobby.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 06:42 PM 06-06-2014
I think Dirac uses mixed-phase correction, so it might be doing something different below the transition range than above, not sure. Out of the box it does allow the user to set the frequency limit for correction. So IF you don't like what it's doing to the mids and highs on your system, you can limit the correction to the bass and mid-bass range.
cannga's Avatar cannga 08:01 PM 06-07-2014
Kings - Rangers on big screen with Theta: I have one nerve left and it's raw. Had to turn down the sound because it made me even more jumpy. tongue.gif
cannga's Avatar cannga 08:20 AM 06-08-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

I think Dirac uses mixed-phase correction, so it might be doing something different below the transition range than above, not sure. Out of the box it does allow the user to set the frequency limit for correction. So IF you don't like what it's doing to the mids and highs on your system, you can limit the correction to the bass and mid-bass range.

Sanjay, is there some reason why the fact that Dirac uses mixed phase correction leads you to think that they are doing something different below and above Schroeder frequency? I don't need to understand "mixed phase," just thinking there might be some interesting reasons why you wrote the above.

Also, is the "mixed phase" technology related to the IIR/FIR filters? Thanks.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.dirac.se/en/technologies/dirac-hd-sound/technical-description.aspx
MIXED PHASE TECHNOLOGY
By using a look-ahead buffer it becomes possible to perform impulse response correction
Other attempts at performing loudspeaker correction employ minimum-phase or linear-phase filters and fail to optimize the impulse response
They only try to minimize the additional smearing caused by the filtering
Dirac HD Sound optimizes the impulse response and the magnitude response of the sound system, which also makes it less sensitive to room-acoustic problems
Impulse response correction can only be obtained using mixed-phase filters

IMPLEMENTATION FOR BEST ACCURACY
Traditional EQ uses IIR filters for lowest processor usage.
Many loudspeaker correction filters use FIR filters for ease of optimization.
A Dirac-proprietary filter structure ensures maximum resolution at minimum processor usage.
This implementation has a structure with great numerical properties, not causing any digital noise.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 11:26 AM 06-08-2014
Can, like I said I'm not sure, but they seem aware that there is a point up to which they can often get improvements in both frequency response and impulse response, but above which point correction can result in smearing of details and clarity. Earlier versions of Audyssey, for example, didn't do this and you can sometimes hear a dulling in the higher frequencies (their newer XT32 avoids this problem). Dirac seems to use a mix of filter types to properly correct in the lower frequencies while avoiding some of the ripples in the higher frequencies.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 12:02 PM 06-12-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Can, like I said I'm not sure, but they seem aware that there is a point up to which they can often get improvements in both frequency response and impulse response, but above which point correction can result in smearing of details and clarity. Earlier versions of Audyssey, for example, didn't do this and you can sometimes hear a dulling in the higher frequencies (their newer XT32 avoids this problem). Dirac seems to use a mix of filter types to properly correct in the lower frequencies while avoiding some of the ripples in the higher frequencies.
Ive heard 10 dirac calibrations in 9 out of ten resolution was GREATLY enhanced, tonal wise and spatial resolution wise.
cannga's Avatar cannga 10:38 AM 06-13-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Can, like I said I'm not sure, but they seem aware that there is a point up to which they can often get improvements in both frequency response and impulse response, but above which point correction can result in smearing of details and clarity. Earlier versions of Audyssey, for example, didn't do this and you can sometimes hear a dulling in the higher frequencies (their newer XT32 avoids this problem). Dirac seems to use a mix of filter types to properly correct in the lower frequencies while avoiding some of the ripples in the higher frequencies.
Thanks Sanjay for the continued "education." One interesting thing I have noticed is this: in Sean Olive's original paper, among the various obsevations, one prime preference for room correction is about "fullness," yet that doesn't seem to be a common comment I see in various members' observations here. Clarity & openess *seem* to be the more common observation; at least I have not once seen "fullness."

What I have heard with automobile Dirac in the wife's M3 is this (where I could blind-test identify Dirac with 100% certainty): tighter and considerably cleaner bass, forward midrange and soundstage, some loss of fine detail of cymbal, brush on snare, etc. I too mentioned "increased clarity," and my take on this is that it is the sub Shroeder's clean up that results in the increase in clarity. However this still doesn't explain for me why Olive's research paper indicates fullness as desireable - and that's not what people seem to be hearing with room correction.

Am I interpreting this paper the correctly?




sdurani's Avatar sdurani 10:56 AM 06-13-2014
I think fullness just means it is not thin sounding (like how a measured-flat response would sound).
quad4.0's Avatar quad4.0 11:03 AM 06-13-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
worthy test of our "Ultra" processors & speaker setups!!

Besides the jaw dropping bass (my wife at one point thought we had another earthquake - no kidding, since we just had one here in Southern Cal), did anyone notice this overhead flies sequence at 1:21:16? Right after Sandra Bullock surfaced from underwater, at 1:21:16, first a fly buzzing *directly* over audience right side, then over audience left rear, then it flies towards the screen where you now see it on screen! In the mean time, space ship debris racing right to left in the sky. Wow what an audio treat! I love the effort and talent of movie sound engineers!

The "overhead flies" sequence is THE most distinct overhead sound maneuver that I have ever heard, and of note, much more pleasing in 7:1 setup than in 5:1 setup, as the 7:1 setup makes the effect more distinctly in mid air above us in my system, pulls sound effect rearward, and expands soundstage, from besides audience to both besides and directly behind audience. Very spooky and my family all laughed incredulously when I pointed out they had just heard the flies overhead.
If you are at 5.1, I highly recommend it that you give 7.1 expansion a try. Even using cheap B&W in-ceiling speakers (1200/pair), I have been able to expand my system to 7.1 and dramatically change the soundscape.

I also have never had my chair vibrate so much in a movie LOL. In fact the whole floor was vibrating. From crystal clear conversation, to jaw dropping bass, to spectacular sound effects, yes, all the audiophile engineers have abandoned music for the theaters! :-)

ADDENDUM: Looking back, this thread should be renamed THE ULTIMATE OFF-TOPIC THREAD for all the off topic stuffs here :-). Feel free to add; anything goes.

LIST OF DEMO WORTHY MATERIAL: Over the years, many favorites but below are the ones I use over and over to demo the powerful and clean sound of my Theta Casablanca:
1. Super 8 - opening train wreck sequence: bombastic, frightening, makes my audience duck the flying debris. Among my all time favorite.
2. Gravity: unbelievable deep bass throughout movie, spectacular visual that's well coordinated with sound effect.
3. Chicago - Cell Block Tango: Musical, physical (Not the sound, the dancers :-). I love watching how powerful and beautiful the young dancers are., smooth mid-range and treble, transparent and layered soundstage. This is my "music" demo.
4. Gladiator - opening sequence: remains one of the most hair-raising movie openings. Can't take my eyes off Richard Harris's acting. This is the young and sitll good Russell Crowe.
5. Roy Orbison's Black and White Night: my all time favorite concert DVD. A once in a lifetime performance, fortunately recorded by an audiophile. Smooth & natural, of course not the level of my vinyl but as good as it gets for a digitally recorded concert.

Scene of the vibration :-):

Many, many times have I stopped a film, to get up and see who was at my door, or to answer the phone or see who was tapping on my window! This began with VHS tapes and got worse with DD and even worse with loss-less audio! My company will insist there is someone making noise, and even will try to catch me doing it!
cannga's Avatar cannga 08:11 PM 06-16-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by quad4.0 View Post
Many, many times have I stopped a film, to get up and see who was at my door, or to answer the phone or see who was tapping on my window! This began with VHS tapes and got worse with DD and even worse with loss-less audio! My company will insist there is someone making noise, and even will try to catch me doing it!
The 2 film sound effects that seem to trick me the most are one, phone ring - the old mechanical bell ring, and two, sound of dog barking from a distance. To the point that even when I try, I can't tell.

And those horror movies if I watch alone by myself late at night, it seems every door opening by the serial killer is the door to my hometheater. I really don't enjoy watching horror movies with too much sound effects by myself. Way too creepy with lossless codecs.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 03:50 AM 06-17-2014


The end of High end as we know it commences here. The zebra wood veneer differentiators, the cable elevators, spikes and huge single channel amplifiers, as much as we love that do you really think speakers will still be standing 3 feet from walls in the future home theater? Nope.

With more individuals endeavouring to develop technology that surpasses todays Audiophile stereo and 7.1 system in 3D fashion I venture to assure you all speakers will be either behind the screen or in the walls/ceilings (in 24-32 speaker counts). And electronics will get much better in recreating the stereo recording image soundstage and the discrete multichannel recordings' as well. Everything will play through these incredible refined surround speakers and object based psychoacoustic megaprocessors, tthe amplifiers will need to be racked cooled and hushed. YOU HEARD IT FIRST FROM ME > food for thought!
Attached: ae-th306.jpg (209.2 KB)  ae-th901.jpg (368.2 KB) 
cannga's Avatar cannga 11:35 AM 06-17-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
The end of High end as we know it commences here. The zebra wood veneer differentiators, the cable elevators, spikes and huge single channel amplifiers, as much as we love that do you really think speakers will still be standing 3 feet from walls in the future home theater? Nope.

With more individuals endeavouring to develop technology that surpasses todays Audiophile stereo and 7.1 system in 3D fashion I venture to assure you all speakers will be either behind the screen or in the walls/ceilings (in 24-32 speaker counts). And electronics will get much better in recreating the stereo recording image soundstage and the discrete multichannel recordings' as well. Everything will play through these incredible refined surround speakers and object based psychoacoustic megaprocessors, tthe amplifiers will need to be racked cooled and hushed. YOU HEARD IT FIRST FROM ME > food for thought!
Thanks Peter for targeting us audiophiles; I am flattered you know that despite of all the weird things we do :-), we could hear. I didn't know Dolby Atmos now recommend Quested AMT speakers?

Kidding aside (I have no doubt the theaters you created have fantastic movie sound) and to illustrate the difference between movie sound and high-end music sound: I had a chance to listen to a couple of AMT speakers: one is a two way, the other 4 ways; the only reason I have not written about the experience is I don't enjoying writing negative reviews.

I found the treble performance of the 2 way ESS AMT speaker, from "high-end audio" standpoint, to be quite prominent, to the point of being harsh and tizzy, oddly at the same time lacking details. The 4 way speaker with dual AMT drivers has less hole-in-the-middle problem and sounds much better, but, being close to the Wilson Audio room, illustrates starkly the lack of resolution, imaging focus, and layered soundstage against a SOTA speaker with conventional dome tweeter. Some people may like the sound of AMT driver (no right or wrong), but I would still caution it's a must to have an in-home audition of any 2 way AMT speakers, and opt for the 3 way if at all possible if music is part of the priority. They are possibly great for hometheater and the AMT Quested could likely be better, but the ones I hear are very far from being considered adequate for a top notch music system, IMHO and YMMV of course.

Interestingly, it seems to me a great audiophile music system could easily be converted to a great hometheater, but the reverse is not necessarily true. You brought up a great example of the reasons why: every single great sounding system at the recent High End Show in Newport Beach has speakers way out in the room, and possibly the greatest system I've ever listened to, the Magico behemoth room, has the speakers no less than 8 (eight!) feet from the back wall, driven by 2 huge tube monoblocks. We will all faint if you even mention the idea of putting a screen in front of our music speakers! The gap is unlikely to be terminated any time soon.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 09:29 AM 06-18-2014
Oh the gap will take a decade or more to happen, I just said that the ending process "as we know it" commences with 24+ channel count Atmos at home. Atmos does not recommend anything but D- commercial crapola cinema equipment, but as far as the 3D of the sound it has the capacity to personally invade your space with sounds through your gut, around your head and the ability to park them behind your ear if they so chose, them flies overhead will image more surrealistically defined in a room such as above. No Doubt. Regarding the three way AMT , I am with you until I hear what I heard with the 5 three way system on a 2 way, with music. The AMt but also I am talking ribbons, and the fact that I inadvertedly created the solution to the ATMOS conondrum, by firing up a 22.10 Quested system with 3D remapping by trinnov and then playing a bunch of atmos and auro bd;s through the 3d remapped canopy of sound and then I had the super red eye Moscow-Van Nuys and walked straight into the Gravity premiere in the Dolby Atmos Screening Room. Thats my contribution to society, it was purely coincidental but the two insights clearly pointed the way to making a better mouse trap.

Try get a hold of the Jeff Beck at Ronnie something or other Concert in London blu ray, because that system in Moscow rendered by far the greatest presentation of that basement gig anyone could hear, the levels were nowhere near the impression of distortion at what must have scraped 140 decibels top to bottom. So for that Blu-ray alone no MAGICO, mbl, raidho,or Wilson ( Ive heard a pair of the second biggest Wilson speakers at Peter McGraths home with his recordings and it's fantastic), nothing has ever delivered a more emotional spatial- complexity accurate performance to me than that subzero night. No system in a movie theater can resolve the power fatiguelesness and the comfort that unrestrained sweet undistorted high decibels can; YOU HAVEN'T LIVED until you have such epiphany. And since the mixers seem to be scaping not based on the current crap movie sound systems but for a higher spl in mind, then... Why Not indeed?

Also consider that with Audiophile systems and rooms the experience is one more of a connoisseur than that of the more ubiquitous Home Theater surround-phile which is for general human enjoyment of music video and film. If you have the bucks you really cannot compromise: have an atmos room with full channel count Plus another room for 2 channel; to compromise you are clearly neglecting your movie-file persona and depriving yourself of one of the gfreatest pleasures known to man.

Back to 2-3-4 AMT way...
So the only person fighting me to not use the 3 ways is Roger Quested himself, until I hear Bland's system, I have to believe the inventor himself. I will give my opinion then but he seems completely unperturbed by sticking to the 2 ways. a non issue he says. Also the surround speakers from which you get a lot of this atmos soundtrack at the moment are not atm's, and that far field nearfield ensemble is all at this moment I can vouch for. That is not to say that this is a working progress, where I am frontt row center complicit and implicated, perhaps if Naomi Campbell hadn't asked me to play the Despicable Me 4D(d-box) Chapter 13 roller coaster scene segment to all her movie star (Will Smith-Play it again! Play it again!) and the worlds top supermodel friends (wearing dolby glasses and with champagne glasses spilling on the d-box chairs) over and over during Art Basel 11- with the Pharell Williams FUN FUN FUN track (in Art Basel 13 Lenny Kravitz described it an acid trip) ( I just know Pharell from a distance but we later surmised he probably scored the Happy theme in the Penthouse Room built by me- another coincidence) back in 11 I researched the tune FUN-FUN-FUN because it sounded so fvvking good on the PRO Horn system that wanted to kn ow how it was scored and traced it's origins to the Quested Speakers in Hans Zimmer studio. Then I went there and heard not the same tonal balance at 10 feet and 20 feet, so at the time Roger said he had a solution in the works...

So I blindly implemented the speakers on what became one of the first Quested home cinemas, and yes the speaker count was splitting at the seams, but when we programmed the 3d remapping and that system blossomed into unrestrained GLORIOUS sonic holography with chunks of Tony Stark's home flung overhead with aplomb, right there and then we realized we had triumphed were some VERY nasty ass dictators failed, we had conquered MOSCOW WITH THE BEST FREAKING HT ON THE PLANET. That is how I felt , my careers biggest reward. So then I fly into Dolby and hear what I am missing and realize what they are missing the undistorted unrestrained high power vehicle for their brilliant new invention. And thus the Bland, and Taker are really going to be the first ones with the Atmos at home on Steroids. Blame them when the rocky mountain audio fest cancels 1o years from now.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 12:16 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
I had a chance to listen to a couple of AMT speakers: one is a two way, the other 4 ways; the only reason I have not written about the experience is I don't enjoying writing negative reviews.

I found the treble performance of the 2 way ESS AMT speaker, from "high-end audio" standpoint, to be quite prominent, to the point of being harsh and tizzy, oddly at the same time lacking details. The 4 way speaker with dual AMT drivers has less hole-in-the-middle problem and sounds much better, but, being close to the Wilson Audio room, illustrates starkly the lack of resolution, imaging focus, and layered soundstage against a SOTA speaker with conventional dome tweeter. Some people may like the sound of AMT driver (no right or wrong), but I would still caution it's a must to have an in-home audition of any 2 way AMT speakers, and opt for the 3 way if at all possible if music is part of the priority. They are possibly great for hometheater and the AMT Quested could likely be better, but the ones I hear are very far from being considered adequate for a top notch music system, IMHO and YMMV of course..
On the subject of AMT's well I'll agree that when these things are first fired out of the box the high frequencies sound like a Samurai Sword air cutting demonstration, yo9u could hear the air molecules being sliced in space. AND I DEFINITELY WAS CONCERNED. But a month later after not breaking in the sound I am talking about Blasting the freaking system at 130+ db's, they learnt how to behave themselves. Roger explains that is the way HF drivers settle as opposed to LF. Hes got that. And now he is upping the ante to biamped and 8 and 10 inchers capable of 140 db through AMT and is playing attention to optimum dispersion. "From Tora Tora Tora: I am afraid we have awoken a sleeping Giant".
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 12:21 PM 06-18-2014
Now Carl Huff is proposing adding supertweeters to my moon projects, we will be looking into it whilst being mindful of not overloading any electrical circuits. This atmos thing not only will get resistance from yer kin, mr. audiophile, but from frustrated cedia installers that because they are Jack of all trades worrying about multiroom and plasmas and vacuum cleaners will be threading dangerous waters where only the righteous should.

People ask me all the time why I give my trade secrets away here?

Because they are booby trapped for detail. Whats more flatering than genuine imitation is failed genuine imitation.
thebland's Avatar thebland 04:13 PM 06-18-2014
Seemed like an easy choice for me.

Domes cannot do loud SPLs and can fail at high output. I didn't even consider such for my theater as they need to be big to get over 115 db at 20 ft. An Achilles heal for me. If I had Aerials, for example, in my room, in a matter of minutes, I would fry their dome tweeters, have measurable driver compression and would have to give up up a perf screen due to their size.... And being so tall, how would I get heights behind the screen?

Moreover, I've known Peter for many years and have had dinner and been to shows together. Peter is an innovator who is constantly redefining the cutting edge. His input meant a lot and he knows I wanted something special.

I test drove the Questeds and found the 2-way design very pleasing compared to my speakers and a Seaton Catalyst I had on hand. Don't get me wrong, Mark's speaker was excellent but I was looking for a wholesale change in sonics and the airiness and accuracy of the Questeds were better to my ears... And to others I had over that listened to them. Besides, I bought Submersives from Mark .

I also had them sent to Curt (Trinnov) for listening and measurements prior. If they were not going to be ideal for a reference theater, I didn't want to waste my time listening. I wanted a third party, non biased experienced listener to have them for a bit. Curt is incredibly talented and experienced with what great sonics are. I wanted his objective and subjective input. All was good and Curt shipped to me. Then I lived with them for 3 months calibrated by Curt and Trinnov room correction (with the other speakership I had on hand). Pretty ideal listening conditions and let me say, through the Questeds, my a ocelli Vivere' Blu Ray never sounded better!

I can't speak to the speakers Cannga listened to but apparently they weren't to his liking. But an across the board [negative] conclusion of a driver based on one or two designs is no more useful than saying that all dome speakers are bad because brand X and Y sounded bad for a few minutes at a show.

Let me also say that my email chain and across the pond phone calls on everything from crossover design, to running active or passive to custom designs on the surrounds made me feel like I was dealing with professional company that goes to all ends to have a satisfied customers. In making sure all front LCRS AND HEIGHTS would give at least 115 db at my primary listening position and all surrounds would reach a minimum of 105 dbs at my primary listening position, he would set up speakers in his factory and test max SPLS. We spent time on each speaker type, their particular mounting hardware and tweeter positioning. The photographs were great from his experiments on my behalf! A fantastic buying experience with Quested and Peter..

Unlike a few minutes at a show, I spent many hours in my own room with perfect room correction and they came out winners. Every speaker type has it's advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect. You pick your poison and choose the one that best fulfills your needs.

I found them refreshing, powerful and bought a dozen of them.
cannga's Avatar cannga 06:09 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post
I test drove the Questeds and found the 2-way design very pleasing compared to my speakers and a Seaton Catalyst I had on hand. Don't get me wrong, Mark's speaker was excellent but I was looking for a wholesale change in sonics and the airiness and accuracy of the Questeds were better to my ears... And to others I had over that listened to them. Besides, I bought 5 Catalysts from Mark .

I also had them sent to Curt (Trinnov) for listening and measurements prior.
Jeff, which Quested did you/Curt tested, the LT8? If so that's a different technology from what Peter and I are talking about.

The LT8 uses ribbon tweeter, not AMT tweeter. What you liked and Curt measured is not the AMT driver that Peter so loves.
cannga's Avatar cannga 06:36 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post
On the subject of AMT's well I'll agree that when these things are first fired out of the box the high frequencies sound like a Samurai Sword air cutting demonstration.
Peter you always have such a way with words , but your impression is more or less the Japanese version of what I heard. I trust your ears (would of course love to listen to these mega-theaters you have been doing) and believe it when you say it works for movie sound. The screens you used probably tame the high a bit, and then there's your $$$ room treatment, and Trinnov equalizer - who knows.

For music, this type of forward and bright presentation would cause fatigue in the long run and is not going to win many fans. I won't speculate (this time :-)) as to the reasons why, but the other speaker, a 4 way design with dual AMT drivers, did sound warmer and more acceptable. Both speakers though didn't quite have delicate details in the high frequency, and soundstage and imaging are at best average. Some of these characters may be the reasons why Quested still keeps dome tweeter for their studio monitor speakers?
The Bogg's Avatar The Bogg 07:17 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post
Seemed like an easy choice for me.

Domes cannot do loud SPLs and can fail at high output. I didn't even consider such for my theater as they need to be big to get over 115 db at 20 ft. An Achilles heal for me. If I had Aerials, for example, in my room, in a matter of minutes, I would fry their dome tweeters, have measurable driver compression and would have to give up up a perf screen due to their size.... And being so tall, how would I get heights behind the screen?

Moreover, I've known Peter for many years and have had dinner and been to shows together. Peter is an innovator who is constantly redefining the cutting edge. His input meant a lot and he knows I wanted something special.

I test drove the Questeds and found the 2-way design very pleasing compared to my speakers and a Seaton Catalyst I had on hand. Don't get me wrong, Mark's speaker was excellent but I was looking for a wholesale change in sonics and the airiness and accuracy of the Questeds were better to my ears... And to others I had over that listened to them. Besides, I bought 5 Catalysts from Mark .

I also had them sent to Curt (Trinnov) for listening and measurements prior. If they were not going to be ideal for a reference theater, I didn't want to waste my time listening. I wanted a third party, non biased experienced listener to have them for a bit. Curt is incredibly talented and experienced with what great sonics are. I wanted his objective and subjective input. All was good and Curt shipped to me. Then I lived with them for 3 months calibrated by Curt and Trinnov room correction (with the other speakership I had on hand). Pretty ideal listening conditions and let me say, through the Questeds, my a ocelli Vivere' Blu Ray never sounded better!

I can't speak to the speakers Cannga listened to but apparently they weren't to his liking. But an across the board [negative] conclusion of a driver based on one or two designs is no more useful than saying that all dome speakers are bad because brand X and Y sounded bad for a few minutes at a show.

Let me also say that my email chain and across the pond phone calls on everything from crossover design, to running active or passive to custom designs on the surrounds made me feel like I was dealing with professional company that goes to all ends to have a satisfied customers. In making sure all front LCRS AND HEIGHTS would give at least 115 db at my primary listening position and all surrounds would reach a minimum of 105 dbs at my primary listening position, he would set up speakers in his factory and test max SPLS. We spent time on each speaker type, their particular mounting hardware and tweeter positioning. The photographs were great from his experiments on my behalf! A fantastic buying experience with Quested and Peter..

Unlike a few minutes at a show, I spent many hours in my own room with perfect room correction and they came out winners. Every speaker type has it's advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect. You pick your poison and choose the one that best fulfills your needs.

I found them refreshing, powerful and bought a dozen of them.

Did you buy 5 Catalysts AND a bunch of Questeds??????? Great post BTW, and sounds like exceptional customer service.
The Bogg's Avatar The Bogg 07:20 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post
Jeff, which Quested did you/Curt tested, the LT8? If so that's a different technology from what Peter and I are talking about.

The LT8 uses ribbon tweeter, not AMT tweeter. What you liked and Curt measured is not the AMT driver that Peter so loves.
I think you are correct, Can. BTW, some ribbon tweeters can play very loudly - I heard the Pass Labs Rushmore a few years ago and WOW, what an experience.
thebland's Avatar thebland 08:00 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bogg View Post
Did you buy 5 Catalysts AND a bunch of Questeds??????? Great post BTW, and sounds like exceptional customer service.
Doh!! I bought 5 SUBMERSIVES!! Mark is doing my low end. I purchased 5 LT-10s for fronts and front heights, 4 LT-8s for sides and rears and 4 LT2-4s for rear and side heights.

They will be arriving next week. I expect my room should be reworked in 2-3 weeks (refashioning the baffle walls for the new speakers, modifying my columns for the LT8s, placing ceiling mounts for the LT2-4s and completely closing off my equipment room from my theater for a reduced noise floor.

I have sold my ADA SSP, so no SSP.

I'm very excited as the LT-8 sound was so nice, I had to have them. I expect the larger, more powerful LT-10s to sing.
CINERAMAX's Avatar CINERAMAX 08:36 PM 06-18-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannga View Post

The LT8 uses ribbon tweeter, not AMT tweeter. What you liked and Curt measured is not the AMT driver that Peter so loves.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Jeff! Thus far the lt-8 are the only quested surrounds I like, after that Jeff beck presentation and all, i said they were the best surround speakers Ive heard. I know Roger is now Working on ATM biamped surrounds for the future, I am not opining on that.

The surround and ceiling speakers in that bad ass diagram are all lt-8's

Also as far as LCR's I only know the lt-20 so I am not disagreeing that the speaker with the 5 inch mid sounds great because is the only lcr and width Ive heard. The Lt-10s (the 2 way) I used solely as heights and those are some long throw Mother Fvckers capable of throwing entire an entire freightrain soundstage to the backwall. That is all I can say they are capable of HOWEVER the guy who needs to be giving the lecture Mr Quested thinks the LT-10 is a more applicable monitor for rooms our size. He loves those ATM's and is going to do some big 140 decibel Atmos surrounds next, cant wait to hear.


The large dome speakers existed for many years, the atm's are a solution at those speakers not throwing a far enough distance, even in the 3 lcr with 4x15 Hans Zimmer scoring room the speakers don't sound the same towards the back of the room.
thebland's Avatar thebland 08:55 PM 06-18-2014
Yes. In talking with Roger, we talked about the best speaker in a room my size. The cost difference between the LT10 and LT20 is relatively small and though I was willing to go to the LT20 he was adamant it was too much speaker in a room my size 28 X 17 X 9.5. We discussed 2way vs 3way design, crossovers and all else comparing these two speakers and the LT10 came out best for my theater application. Like Peter said, the 10" driver is a proprietary, big throw, unique design. In fact, though I ordered them so that I could either run them active or passive, he recommended passive with bridged Quested amps. Since I bought an amp for each LCR, I can easily convert to active if I so desire using the same stereo amp. None the less, I'm setting up active per his advice as he claims his passive crossover is pretty excellent.

It'd be great to get Roger here. He was a pleasure to deal with.
The Bogg's Avatar The Bogg 08:56 AM 06-19-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post
Yes. In talking with Roger, we talked about the best speaker in a room my size. The cost difference between the LT10 and LT20 is relatively small and though I was willing to go to the LT20 he was adamant it was too much speaker in a room my size 28 X 17 X 9.5. We discussed 2way vs 3way design, crossovers and all else comparing these two speakers and the LT10 came out best for my theater application. Like Peter said, the 10" driver is a proprietary, big throw, unique design. In fact, though I ordered them so that I could either run them active or passive, he recommended passive with bridged Quested amps. Since I bought an amp for each LCR, I can easily convert to active if I so desire using the same stereo amp. None the less, I'm setting up active per his advice as he claims his passive crossover is pretty excellent.

It'd be great to get Roger here. He was a pleasure to deal with.
Nice that he didn't try to upsell you to the larger speaker. However, after seeing the pics of the LT20 THAT is what I would have wanted, lol. I doubt I'll ever have a room much larger than yours so I suppose he'd probably tell me not to get the LT20s either.

When I was building my own room (25x17x8) I wanted the ATC 150 towers but was told they were too big for my room. Glad I listened b/c my 100s are more than enough for my room.
SMHarman's Avatar SMHarman 09:04 AM 06-19-2014
So with 7.1 is the general consensus to use the extra two amps as the rear rear location not front height?

I have 7 speakers (only lowely KEE e305.1 +2) and Sony 1800 ES 7.1 amp to install. Was planning to put the extra 2 at the rear but then noticed the front height option but I think that may also struggle to get WAF with 5 speakers surrounding the TV.
sdurani's Avatar sdurani 10:18 AM 06-19-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMHarman View Post
So with 7.1 is the general consensus to use the extra two amps as the rear rear location not front height?
I would use them for the rear location unless your seating is at or near the back wall and you don't have enough distance behind you for the rear speakers.

5.1 +2 heights might be a more interesting set-up once Atmos hits this fall. But at the moment I wouldn't trade rears for PLIIz or Neo:X heights.
SMHarman's Avatar SMHarman 10:29 AM 06-19-2014
Thanks got a good 7 ft behind me.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk
kbarnes701's Avatar kbarnes701 10:33 AM 06-19-2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
I would use them for the rear location unless your seating is at or near the back wall and you don't have enough distance behind you for the rear speakers.

5.1 +2 heights might be a more interesting set-up once Atmos hits this fall. But at the moment I wouldn't trade rears for PLIIz or Neo:X heights.
Seconded. I have no room for rear surrounds so I am using front Heights as I have the speakers and amps. Heights give a pleasing enhancement with PLIIz or Neo:X but if I had the choice I'd go for rear surrounds. Of course, once Atmos arrives later in the year, I expect my front Heights to be more involving and they will be augmented by a pair of identical rear Heights too. So I will be 5.2+4 by the end of the year hopefully.
First ... 5  6  7 8  9  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop